This is kind of a disingenuous question because the stories do often times exist, however they are not readily available nor do they immediately leap out at you for what I would argue are two principle factors.

In your day to day life you are personally exposed to English speakers, families of English speakers, and individuals who, if they have any connection to the war, predominantly came from a particular side. The culture you are born in is informed by the feats that the culture participated in.

If you consider that war is a collection of perspectives on several sides the stories you are likely to hear are from the perspective of the side you nominally rest on. Being descended from the largely Anglo-American sphere those are the perspectives you are most likely to encounter. There are fair odds that you don't hear much about some of the heroics of Charles de Gaulle either, since the people you are most likely to interact and communicate with weren't there to witness some of his most daring attempts to protect and enable British forces during World War II.

Secondly, with World War II, there is a certain schism because of the very nature of what the sides were in essence fighting for. Removing all of the tit for tatisms that sometimes come up online, ostensibly you had the Axis who had the principle goals of aggression for the purpose of extending indisputably dismal principles. In the west, the Third Reich unleashed a war of naked aggression against its neighbors with the stated goals of racial discrimination, extermination, and a belligerent desire for its neighbors' territory. Italy, the initial founders of Fascism, waged what some might argue were nonsensical wars across Africa and Greece in an attempt to rebuild a faux Roman Empire. In the East, Japan's goals for a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity fear was a thinly veiled attempt to promote a Japanese sovereign hegemony based on a hierarchy of racial discrimination, leaving millions of dead in their wake.

In addition, there was really no nobility to speak of in any of these goals. None of these particular factions were "compelled" into battle by any greater cause, in conflicts that were utterly avoidable if those belligerent nations simply chose not to participate in those fights. They were basely aggressive against their neighbors out of a desire for what their neighbors possessed, in conflicts that continued to escalate to a state of world ruin that left millions and millions of people dead when those conflicts escalated beyond reason.

Even if we were to pardon Germany for its territorial claims in Poland and the Rheinland, the invasion of the Soviet Union was utterly inexcusable and without cause, save to satisfy Hitler's paranoia and a satisfaction of his ideological masturbation, which extended to a genocidal goal against the natives living there. And to make this even more egregious, the genocidal aims were not incidental, but crucial to the thrust of his goals.

Japan found itself at war with the entire western world because its brutal imperial aims in China were met with horror and rather than accede to the international community's refusal to enable this behemoth of carnage they lashed out at the United States, Great Britain, and Netherlands in order to rob of their resources with the stated intent of using their raw materials to continue their murders across the continent of Asia. And then when faced with defeat they held out so ferociously and entrenched so hard that the United States felt itself compelled to use atomic weapons to bring it out of this state.

Therefore there's a certain cultural apprehension to glorifying the tales of people fighting for these purposes. It's difficult to lionize someone whose self sacrifice was made for something as dismal as ad hoc Italian expansion, German racial purification, and Japanese hegemonic, borderline genocide.

The soil of western heroism is a little more fertile for the stories to grow because there isn't much of a moral or intellectual market for the heroics of people who went above and beyond in order to exterminate the Jews or make "living space" for Germans at the expense of Slavs. Who in the English speaking world, is largely interested in hearing about the daring exploits of someone who gave it their all and protected a crucial supply line so that German planes could cross the English channel and pound another series of English apartment blocks to satisfy Hitler's tit-for-tat anger with English resistance?

This all being said, that is not to say that the Axis isn't without their heroes.

To this day, Erwin Rommel remains lionized, despite his mythos sometimes exceeding the truth of his career. His tepid, possible awareness of Operation: Valkyrie has turned into a silent, principled resistance against the NSDP. His behavior toward captured Allied troops has gained him a reputation as chivalrous, his unit's lightning fast (and arguably dangerous, poorly conceived) behavior during the Blitzkrieg gained him the monicker "The Ghost Division", and he is well celebrated for his brilliant capture of 10,000 Italian soldiers at the Battle of Caporetto.

In the same vein, Yamamoto is well regarded for the tale of his reluctant command, a love for Japan in spite of his disagreement with its policies, reluctantly attacking Pearl Harbor despite the misattributed myth of him stating that all they have done is awakening a sleeping giant. Even today, among the West, there is some regret at the manner in which a "noble" man was killed in a relatively "cowardly" fashion via assassination via airplane. While this is not universally true it does, sometimes, come up in discussion.

The movie Letters From Iwo Jima did enormous things for the reputation of Tadamichi Kuribayashi, who is well regarded for the hold out of Iwo Jima that he commanded despite the terrible toll it afflicted on the United States in one of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War for the Americans.

And finally, despite myth nipping at the heels of truth, it's very common to find people espousing the "badass" stories of Michael Wittmann, a semi legendary Panzer ace. There is truth, I would argue, that historians are more apt to be critical of the pop culture legacy of Axis heroes, you're more likely to find people scrutinizing with a little thicker of a lens the achievements of a Wittman over a Murphy, but this links back to what I had said previously, where people are simply less hungry for the heroics of men who were serving objectively deplorable causes relative to those men that rose up to stop those causes.